On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Michael Paquier >>> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Yep, sounds a good thing to do if master requested answer from the >>>> client in the keepalive message. Something like the patch attached >>>> would make the deal. >>> >>> Isn't it better to do this only when replication slot is used? >> Makes sense. What about a check using reportFlushPosition then? > > Sounds reasonable. Thanks for updating the patch! > But the patch could not already be applied to the master cleanly > because c4f99d2 heavily changed the code that the patch also touches... > I rewrote the patch and pushed it to both master and REL9_4_STABLE. > Anyway, thanks!
Is this: + if (reportFlushPosition && lastFlushPosition < blockpos && + walfile != 1) really correct? Shouldn't that walfile test be against -1 (minus one)? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
